<quoted text>Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.<quoted text>Say what exactly?<quoted text>Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.<quoted text>"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.<quoted text>Thank you, smiles back to you.

1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.

The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games.

2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?

3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.

4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

This is simple logic. Perhaps you might try a direct response to the fact; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

By the way, here is some of the other elements of marriage distinguished from gay couples;

If youbelieve denying marriage to a relationshipwill prevent love

If youdemand any committed relationshiphas to be called marriage

If youclaim rights and benefits can only be acquiredby a imposition on marriage

If youequate the diversity of two genderswith the redundancy of same genders

If youdesecrate the sacred tradition of all major religionsand violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If youbelieve a fundamental change to the building block of societywill have absolutely no affect

If youthink a law can changethe reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If youpretend duplicating sexualityis the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If youcondemn some children to parents of only one genderand deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If youignore the design of sexual unionto manipulate a harmful act

If youviolate evolution's law of reproductionto equate a genetic dead end

If yourisk the healthiest human relationshipto include one of the unhealthiest

If youparallel the sole birthplace of every other relationshipwith one that can reproduce none

If youdilute all these thingsdown to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

<quoted text>There's plenty of evidence of same sex marriage affecting our prisons:In the rest of North America, even prison systems are beginning to recognize and accommodate gay marriages. Canada allows same-sex prisoners to wed while still incarcerated. Last October, two male inmates of a federal penitentiary in Quebec province married in the prison chapel. It was the third gay marriage to be performed in a federal prison in Canada since gay marriage was recognized on the national level in July 2005.15 Canada permits “private family visits” for a broad range of relatives including same-sex couples, but the visitor cannot be another prisoner.16 In Mexico, the National Human Rights Commission ruled in February 2007 that conjugal visits must be allowed to same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as are extended to straight couples, and Mexico City’s jail had its first same-sex partner conjugal visit the following July.17https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticl...If you believe penitentiaries should be places for penitence instead of honeymoon romps and forced same sex marriage.

But stupid, your claim was that there would be FORCED gay marriages in prisons. There is nothing wrong with gay prisoners being able to marry and visit their significant others just like straight people can.

<quoted text>While I don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, I agree with the view of same sex marriage. It's not constitutional, it was imposed on the US by a court so it's also undemocratic. Many gay and lesbian activists are on our side and prefer referendum and legislation to the left's imperialistic secularism.Morality makes a great personal value, but we need to discuss these issues in public. I oppose shutting down civil discourse.

You are so dumb, you think legalizing gay marriage will lead to members of professional sports teams being forced to marry each other! Will they have to be members of the same team? Just curious.

<quoted text>The statement above is untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never discussed sin or written homosexuality is sick, those are Jazybird58'S words, not mine.Many homosexuals believe in protecting male/female marriage too. Conservatism doesn't have a sexual orientation.

The fact you feel gay marriage harms straight marriage shows you have ill feelings towards gay people.So, when are members of pro sports teams going to be forced to marry each other?

<quoted text>1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games....

By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>....2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?...

Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>...3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.....

Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....

I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>...If youbelieve denying marriage to a relationshipwill prevent loveIf youdemand any committed relationshiphas to be called marriageIf youclaim rights and benefits can only be acquiredby a imposition on marriageIf youequate the diversity of two genderswith the redundancy of same gendersIf youdesecrate the sacred tradition of all major religionsand violate the historic practice of every single culture in historyIf youbelieve a fundamental change to the building block of societywill have absolutely no affectIf youthink a law can changethe reality of crucial distinctions in relationshipsIf youpretend duplicating sexualityis the same as blending masculinity and femininityIf youcondemn some children to parents of only one genderand deliberately deny some children one natural parentIf youignore the design of sexual unionto manipulate a harmful actIf youviolate evolution's law of reproductionto equate a genetic dead endIf yourisk the healthiest human relationshipto include one of the unhealthiestIf youparallel the sole birthplace of every other relationshipwith one that can reproduce noneIf youdilute all these thingsdown to just 'a committed relationship of two people'Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.Smile.

Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with marriage (or sex)Human rights are innate, not grantedEquate… diversity … redundancy.. what???Surely, sacred religions aren’t afraid of the doing of you or I…Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!Things don’t get better without changeLaws do change this – for instance the marriage tax creditWTF is duplicating sexualitySo children of single parents are also condemned? Really?WTF is design of sexual unionEvolution has no laws. Not one... none at all…Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: it’s not SSM)Reproduction doesn’t require marriage; and marriage does not imply kidsDilute.. the..what, huh?

<quoted text>Who cares whether its the polices job idiot? And moron, grasp this, the police system will make regulations with FORCED marriages, with a verifiable reason in order to prevent prison rape, like they are supposed to, dimwit!

Are you drunk, high, or just plain stupid? The "police system" will make regulations with forced marriages?..with a varifiable reason in order to prevent prison rape?

Can you point out where they've done this in Canada?

The more you post the more I am astounded by the magnitude of your idiocy.

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>Because if gay marriage does not exist officially, then cell mates won't be married to each other for prison regulations. Most prison rapes are done to men, by men, stupid. If gay marriage does exist, they will be able to put in that regulation, moron.

Can you explain to the rest of the forum why your posts read like they were composed by a ten year old?

<quoted text>By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.<quoted text>Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.<quoted text>Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....<quoted text>I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.<quoted text>Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with marriage (or sex)Human rights are innate, not grantedEquate… diversity … redundancy.. what???Surely, sacred religions aren’t afraid of the doing of you or I…Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!Things don’t get better without changeLaws do change this – for instance the marriage tax creditWTF is duplicating sexualitySo children of single parents are also condemned? Really?WTF is design of sexual unionEvolution has no laws. Not one... none at all…Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: it’s not SSM)Reproduction doesn’t require marriage; and marriage does not imply kidsDilute.. the..what, huh?

<quoted text>Protecting? I don’t understand, homosexual marriage does not attack heterosexual marriage in any way at all. There are over 18,0000 legal homosexual marriages in California now, It certainly did not hurt my marriage, how did it hurt yours?

<quoted text>No moron, hard to believe you are 69, more like 20. The majority of the voters were against same sex marriage, 80%!

I've also pointed out how easily election results can be rigged, to support any agenda that is being forced upon us. Imagine, I've been told that elections are all honest and straightforward. No rigging ever occurs, according to one poster (Big D). We live in a perfect world...LOL

<quoted text>Did I say poly was your obsession dummy? Learn to read.So what if you don't give a flip about poly? Most people don't give a flip about SSM. What do I care what you give a flip about? So what if it might not be decades? Are these your real reasons to deny equal rights?By what logic do you insist on the traditional, arbitrary, religious and discriminatory number of two?

Many do not give a flip about SSM, but are forced to watch as it becomes valid. But for those that give a flip about poly and incest, it must be a slap in the face to watch "equality' being doled out, but only for some....Like "Animal Farm". We are all created equal, but some are more equal than others...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.